[sillyquiet]

> but that argument depends on assuming we have a complete archaeological record, which we of course do not.

In other words that argument depends on the available evidence rather than speculation, like, you know, how science should be done.

[moloch-hai]

Assuming you already have all the possible evidence already leads to falsehoods. Science is about not embracing falsehoods, if it is anything.

What you promote is what cemented "Clovis first" for decades beyond its sell-by date, and opposition to the K-T bolide model and plate tectonics. Pretending to know interferes with coming to know.

For a more recent example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00128...

Opposition was sloppy to the point of dishonesty.